Note:If you do not have Acrobat Reader, or if you have problems reading our files with your current version of Acrobat Reader, the latest version of Acrobat Reader is available free at www.adobe.com.

Full Text of Decision

39018

42210 SERVICE
DATE – APRIL 25, 2012

DO

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

DECISION

Docket No. AB 1071

STEWARTSTOWN RAILROAD
COMPANY—ADVERSE ABANDONMENT—IN YORK COUNTY, PA.

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Decided: April 24, 2012

By motion filed on January 18,
2012, and a supplemental filing received on January 25, 2012, James Riffin
(Riffin) seeks a protective order under 49 C.F.R. § 1104.14(b) to protect
certain documents and information he has designated as highly confidential, and
submitted in connection with his intended Offer of Financial Assistance (OFA),
should the Board grant abandonment authority in this proceeding.[1] Included as an Appendix to the motion are a proposed protective order
and confidential undertaking.

Riffin submits that a protective
order is necessary because certain documents reflect highly confidential,
personal financial statements and data which Riffin does not want disclosed to
the public.

The requested motion will be
denied. The protective order sought by Riffin is unnecessary, as the Board previously
issued a protective order in this proceeding on June 29, 2011 (2011
Protective Order). The 2011 Protective Order defines “Confidential
Information” to include, among other things, confidential terms of contracts or
discussions with shippers, potential shippers, or carriers; confidential
financial and cost data and other confidential or proprietary business or
personal information. Further, a party may designate Confidential Information
as “Highly Confidential” if the submission contains “shipper-specific rate or
cost data, division of rates, trackage rights compensation levels,” or “other
competitively sensitive or proprietary information.” The 2011 Protective Order
states that “any party to these Proceedings may challenge the designation by
any other party of information or documents as ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ or as ‘HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL’ by filing a motion with the Board . . . .” Riffin has designated
the information in his January 18th and 25th filings
as “Highly Confidential,” and, although SRC and the Estate have moved to reject
or deny Riffin’s separate protective order and other filings related to his
stated intent to file an OFA,[2] no party has
challenged Riffin’s designation under the existing protective order.

This decision will not significantly affect
either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy
resources.

It is ordered:

1.The
motion for protective order is denied.

2. This decision is effective on its service
date.

By the Board, Rachel
D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.

[1]Along with his Motion for Protective Order filed on January 18,
2012, Riffin filed a Notice of Intent to Participate as a Party of Record and a
Notice of Intent to file an OFA (OFA Notice). On January 20, 2012, the
Estate of George M. Hart and Stewartstown Railroad Company filed a joint reply
requesting that the Board reject or deny Riffin’s OFA Notice and related
filings in this proceeding.

[2]
The Board will address in a subsequent decision whether Riffin may file an OFA.